STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

bloomie · Marc Jacobs

Christian Louboutin suing Oh Deer

JMR · Dooney & Bourke

the way I see it is that Oh Deer is CLEARLY knocking off CL. It's not like it's a totally different shoe with a red sole. It's the same shoe! So even though I don't totally think having a red sole is enough to go by - knocking off a total design is.

In one way I think it is about time that designers stick up for themselves and their creations. (Some designers also started suing F21 for the same reasons)On the other hand, does that mean I won't be able to buy a pair of "inspired by" shoes for a fraction of the price of the real thing??

cinderella4282 · BCBG

It depends on why the other brands have adopted the use of the red sole. From the look of the Oh Deer! shoes, they seem to have attempted to model themselves a cheap knockoff of Louboutin. For this he should have the right to sue.

Tiffany's owns the right to their blue and have it trademarked, so I think he should have rights to the red sole. Especially since he has used that to designate the brand for quite some time.

luckylily · Gucci

JMR wrote:
In one way I think it is about time that designers stick up for themselves and their creations. (Some designers also started suing F21 for the same reasons)On the other hand, does that mean I won't be able to buy a pair of "inspired by" shoes for a fraction of the price of the real thing??

I dunno, IMO "inspired by" and creating a replica that looks exactly like the real thing are are two totally different things.

Personally, I hate the exact replica knock offs, so I hope Louboutin wins this one.

XtinaStyles · Marc Jacobs

I think the lawsuit is justified. The red sole of CL was his trademark and when you saw that red sole you knew "Wow shes wearing CL's" Now its not so certain bc of the knockoff and that lessens the power of their trademark red soles. Go CL, I'm rooting for you!

ILoveChoo · Hermes

I'm torn. The red sole is like CL's logo...so its no better than a company putting coach c's all over a bag. But if they didn't officially trademark the sole or anything, its still fair game....

sephorablue · Marc Jacobs

I definitely think he has the right, but I also think he should have done it from the outset--I'm actually really surprised that he didn't.

Cortney1982 · Chanel

For the color of a sole, no. For a shoe that looks exactly the same, yes.

Kelly · Hermes

ILoveChoo wrote:

I'm torn. The red sole is like CL's logo...so its no better than a company putting coach c's all over a bag. But if they didn't officially trademark the sole or anything, its still fair game....

ITA. Was it right of all the other companies to do knockoffs? No. But they did have the right, it seems, if it was never officially registered as a trademark. If I understand trademark law correctly...

cahabo · Kate Spade

Cortney1982 wrote:

For the color of a sole, no. For a shoe that looks exactly the same, yes.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Vanessa · Kate Spade

Cortney1982 wrote:

For the color of a sole, no. For a shoe that looks exactly the same, yes.

I agree as well. I have two pairs of red-soled shoes that aren't Louboutins - one is YSL and one is BCBG, and they are both at least three years old. I doubt Louboutin even considered suing them.
Now blatantly copying his designs, that's another story.

bloomie · Marc Jacobs

Cortney1982 wrote:

For the color of a sole, no. For a shoe that looks exactly the same, yes.

I agree.

ViViDogWear · Kate Spade

I'm very surprised actually that CL never trademarked their own red sole or something to that effect. Now I think anything before a trademark is fair game, unless the shoe is a clear knock-off. However, anything after the trademark, CL should be able to sue for.